What amount of compensation can be directed by court to be deposited in court prior to hearing of appeal against conviction in dishonour of cheque?

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
in fact, the petitioner has a good case on merits in appeal. That,
the complainant has not been able to establish that the
petitioner was liable to pay legally dis-chargeable debt. It is
further submitted that, at present, the economic condition of the
petitioner is not fair enough to enable him to deposit an amount
of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs as a condition precedent for the hearing of the
appeal. It is further submitted that, the appellant would lose the
statutory right of the appeal being heard on merits only because
of his inability to deposit an amount of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs as a
condition precedent. The disputed cheque was of an amount
Rs. 4.00 Lakhs. Petitioner has fairly shown his willingness to
deposit 1/4th amount of the disputed cheque as a condition
precedent for the hearing of the appeal. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner has placed implicit reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip S.
Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in
2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1775 (S.C.). The Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that the amount of compensation must be a reasonable sum and
that the Court while fixing such amount must have regard to all
relevant factors including the one referred to in sub-section (5)
of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned
JMFC had directed the petitioner herein to deposit an amount of
Rs. 4.00 Lakhs towards compensation. The appellate Court has
directed the appellant to deposit half of the compensation
amount. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, it
is beyond the reach of the petitioner to deposit half of the
amount of compensation and, therefore, seeks leniency.
4. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and
the submissions advanced across the bar, this Court is inclined
to modify the order dt. 1st April, 2015 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli. The order stands modified
as under.
“The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli by 8th June,
2015.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 2015
Pawan s/o Rameshchandra Rathi  V Tarachand s/o Ghevarchand Dhoot 
 CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
 DATED : MAY 5TH, 2015.
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(cri)4154

 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Counsel for the respondent. Rule. Rule made
returnable forthwith with the consent of parties.
2. The petitioner herein is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
in SCC No. 38 of 2013 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli
(in short “JMFC”) vide judgment and order dated 3rd March

2015. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the
petitioner herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2015 before the
Sessions Court, Hingoli. The learned Appellate Court has
suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the
petitioner by JMFC upon a condition that he shall deposit
Rs. 2.00 Lakhs within two weeks. The petitioner herein seeks
modification of the said order dt. 1st April, 2015.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
in fact, the petitioner has a good case on merits in appeal. That,
the complainant has not been able to establish that the
petitioner was liable to pay legally dis-chargeable debt. It is
further submitted that, at present, the economic condition of the
petitioner is not fair enough to enable him to deposit an amount
of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs as a condition precedent for the hearing of the
appeal. It is further submitted that, the appellant would lose the
statutory right of the appeal being heard on merits only because
of his inability to deposit an amount of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs as a
condition precedent. The disputed cheque was of an amount
Rs. 4.00 Lakhs. Petitioner has fairly shown his willingness to
deposit 1/4th amount of the disputed cheque as a condition
precedent for the hearing of the appeal. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner has placed implicit reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip S.
Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in
2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1775 (S.C.). The Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that the amount of compensation must be a reasonable sum and
that the Court while fixing such amount must have regard to all
relevant factors including the one referred to in sub-section (5)
of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned
JMFC had directed the petitioner herein to deposit an amount of
Rs. 4.00 Lakhs towards compensation. The appellate Court has
directed the appellant to deposit half of the compensation
amount. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, it
is beyond the reach of the petitioner to deposit half of the
amount of compensation and, therefore, seeks leniency.
4. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and
the submissions advanced across the bar, this Court is inclined
to modify the order dt. 1st April, 2015 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli. The order stands modified
as under.
“The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli by 8th June,
2015.”

5. Upon failure to deposit the said amount, the
appellate Court shall not extend the time and shall decide the
matter in accordance with law. The order dated 1st April, 2015
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, stands
quashed and set aside as is being modified. Rule is made
absolute in above terms. Petition stands disposed of.
( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. )
sgp

Print Page